Last Friday, the Obama Administration dropped a bombshell - admitting in a memo that the Senate's government takeover of health care would increase the cost of health care. This is just the latest report which confirms that both the House and Senate health care bills don't "bend the cost curve down" as the President and his Democratic allies in Congress have repeatedly claimed.
As the New York Times reported on Saturday:
Richard S. Foster, the chief actuary of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said Friday that under Mr. Reid's bill national health spending from 2010 to 2019 would total $35.5 trillion. That is $234 billion, or 0.7 percent, more than the amount projected under current law, he added... Republicans said Mr. Foster's report confirmed what they had been saying for months.
The Obama Administration has already admitted that the House health care bill will increase health care costs. In an October memo from the Obama Administration's Chief Actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Richard Foster, estimated that "Total national health expenditures under [H.R. 3200] would increase by an estimated 2.7 percent in calendar year 2019." Over the next 10 years, CMS predicts overall national health expenditures will jump by 2.1 percent, or $750.3 billion. And the independent, non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) agreed with the CMS analysis, as the Washington Post noted recently: the "House bill, the CBO said, would push federal spending higher."
So what do the Democrats' health care bills actually accomplish? The following chart makes it plain: the Democrats are aiming for a government takeover of health care, and both the House and Senate bills would accomplish that goal.
(Chart courtesy of the House Budget Committee Republican staff)
The Wall Street Journal eviscerated Democrats' claims that their government takeover of health care would actually contain costs in an editorial today:
The White House hawked a permanent entitlement expansion on flimsy and speculative theories that its own partisans now admit-albeit when it is nearly too late-aren't more substantive than the triumph of hope over experience, while simultaneously writing off the one policy that has been effective in the real world. The cost control mantra of ObamaCare was always a political bill of goods, and its result will be the opposite of its claims: poorer quality care at higher costs.
And Robert J. Samuelson noted in today's Washington Post that:
Health cost increases might spontaneously recede, but history suggests skepticism....To attack costs first would be politically challenging. It would require admitting that all good things are not possible simultaneously and that the uninsured already receive much medical care. It would require genuine bipartisanship, not just a scramble for a few Republican votes....That's a demanding and realistic approach; Obama's is wishful thinking.
There have been two consistent facts that have consistently confirmed by both the CBO and CMS actuaries: the Democrats' government takeover of health care increases health care costs, and the Republican alternative decreases health care costs. In fact, the CBO estimated that the GOP health care plan would lower premiums by up to 10 percent and reduce the deficit by $68 billion over 10 years without imposing tax increases on families and small businesses.
As House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has repeatedly said, "it's time for Democrats to scrap their costly government takeover of health , start over and work with Republicans on reforms that make health care more affordable and accessible."
To read more about House Republicans' better health care solutions, visit HealthCare.GOP.gov.